Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

29 June 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 28	June 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. The sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. (The first source is some kind of WP:USERGENERATED list of MP3 files, the second source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the subject, and the third fails verification entirely, referencing an entirely different individual with the patronym "Qalinle.) Additional qualifying sources were not found in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Quast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923: My revert was due to the previous request for a discussion regarding notability of the subject, which had not yet occurred. A search of multiple newspaper archives failed to uncover any WP:SIGCOV for the subject, however, and as such WP:GNG is not met. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list mentioned, player isn't notable by himself BFC Aspie (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a case for keeping here. There's lots of mentions and some articles on him which could arguably be SIGCOV, such as this piece from The Courier-Journal which is a decent-sized piece focusing on him and one other; there's also an article on "Quast Is Added To Grid Staff At U. of L." ("He was one of the best punters ever produced by a local school and his kicking won immediate attention at Purdue") and a brief piece with a photo [1] ("his ability to snag forward passes has gained him recognition") – his one-game stay with the Brecks also has coverage: "Quast, Ex-Purdue Star Is To Play With Brecks In Tomorrow's Contest" / [2]. His death also received coverage in the area papers, such as [3] ("Quast ... starred at Purdue and he became an outstanding football official"). Thoughts @Cbl62, Let'srun, and BFC Aspie:? – I can turn this into something pretty decent if you like. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that of those sources, the best one is the 1926 one talking about him joining the Louisville coaching staff. The other ones are either mentions or focus more on other people, while I'm not sure how to rate the obit. I do think this is a close call with those sources though, so maybe draftify (or userfy) to try and find more sources? I'm also wondering now if there are any books which may have covered him? Let'srun (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to work on adding the sources and improving the article, I'd support draftification. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to expand the article with the sources found, would both of you consider that sufficient? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinga

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is my opinion that this article falls short of the WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards in regarding to sourcing and significant coverage. Some of the sourcing comes from the Benzinga site itself, other coverage is minimal and does not go into any great depth. At least one major contributor to the article was paid to polish the text (and that person has since been blocked). I welcome the conversation on the editorial merits of this article. Thank you. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Kane (American football)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921: My revert was due to the previous request for a discussion to determine notability, which hadn't yet occurred. However, a search of multiple newspaper archives failed to uncover the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Kholoniuk

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NSKATE is wrong and should never have been adopted. So many articles about champion skaters are being deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Kropotina

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Academy High school

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school, none of the sources cited contributes anything towards notability, and a BEFORE search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with flying colours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability but did not find any. I agree with the nominator; it fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DePaola

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Honor System (band), as that band seemed to accomplish a little more. I'm not sure if his other band (The Broadways) is notable either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Solčanský

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions of his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia on 18 November 2018, possibly due to BLP concerns. The only interlanguage wiki available is Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) Wikipedia but it listed exactly the same sources as the English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets the notability criteria for athletes, having competed in the Winter Olympics and achieved notable rankings in World Championships and World Cups.Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cansolabao, Samar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized barangays.~~ Also, coverage found in books. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 barangays are not cities/towns of the Philippines. They are just administrative divisions. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). Only those that jave backing reliable, independent, secondary sources that are not mere statistic listings or listings of schools/establishments/tourist sites, like Forbes Park, Makati, are qualified to have standalone articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I did not realize it was 40,000 barangays. Thanks for pointing it out. But, I would still keep this article per the coverage I found in books. Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.

I would like to see a country whose smallest administrative divisions/units are covered by enwiki. I think that would be India (e.g. Delhi Cantonment and Haqiqat Nagar ➡️ List of neighbourhoods of Delhi). @Cocobb8:, can you give specific examples of countries whose 90-100% of smallest administrative divisions (divisions of cities/towns) are covered by enwiki? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck Just a question where does GEOLAND talk about urban sprawl and subdvisions/subadminsitrative units of a greater one? Ping me in the reply too please. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, User:Eostrix discusses this. Granted it was apparently his personal interpretation.

As for this barangay, this is quite some distance away from the main Hinabangan town center, about 36 kilometers away. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...that AfD completely mis-applies WP:GEOLAND... SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hinabangan#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer the current de facto consensus among Filipino Wikipedians is that the administrative wards or barangays should be treated per case-to-case basis. Those like Forbes Park, Makati can stand alone, but majority (90% perhaps) do not. Unless a higher consensus through WP:GEOLAND forums overrides the de facto consensus of the Filipino Wikipedians. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND is policy which would over-ride local consensus, which would not preclude this topic anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhokar

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the current sources are significant coverage, and I think that the same issues from the August 2016 AfD still apply. So, this still fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, Pakistan, and India. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there does not seem to have been any attempt to find sources that actually prove notability, rather the reverse, a quick attempt to ignore the old AfD, notable or, as here, not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current sources don't seem to provide any substantial coverage. Waqar💬 17:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Karl of Hesse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources include passing mentions in a couple of books about other people and a self-published fansite. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References add up to enough to pass GNG. The coverage of his wedding in 1966 by Pathé News, a British newsreel company, was the equivalent of coverage by network television news today. The book references are way more than passing mentions, and the subject doesn't have to be the primary topic of a book for it to be a valid reference. Being a German aristocrat is not by itself enough to establish notability, but an aristocrat who attracts consistent media attention can be notable. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him, but the French and Dutch ones do. Someone who reads German might be able to find additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balghar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been in CAT:UNREF for 16 years. I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editor created article in 2008 with two un-sourced edits, and then never edited on Wikipedia again. Lots of subsequent editors since then, but no one has provided sourcing. — Maile (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - agree wit above. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to exist and meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been discussed in several scholarly articles (perform an easy search on Google) and clearly meets WP:GEOLAND, though I think most sources won't be in English. SportingFlyer T·C 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There should at least be one reference to verify that this place indeed exists and meets WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are rock carvings (petroglyphs) and inscriptions near Balghar. See this reference: Journal of Asian Civilisations. Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations. 2000. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hram Hall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:NBUILD due to a lack of independent non-routine coverage (Google search) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Serbia. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found in newspapers or in books. Fails WP:NBUILD as there is no coverage to indicate the importance of that building in any way. We don't need an article on every single building out there. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails WP:OR, and is a WP:STUB despite being 9 years old. Overall, article seems to not be WP:N. --Mjks28 (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjks28, just to note that being a WP:STUB by itself is not a reason for deletion. It's more about failing notability . Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand being a WP:STUB isn't alone a reason for deletion. It is just part of my overall profile on the article, though my main reasons are that the article doesn't appear to pass WP:N, and is WP:OR. Mjks28 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any coverage beyond trivial mentions that RK Jugović plays there. Perhaps that could be a redirect target? Walsh90210 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and comments above. M S Hassan (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gerald Branch II

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The current content of this article is a complete duplicate of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). The following statement is all about Joseph Branch (Florida politician), not his son:

assassinated November 22, 1867
a state legislator in Florida at the age of 21, worked as a lawyer, and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas
married Mary Polk

Evidence here: in that article, says:

Joseph Branch is son of Joseph Branch and Susan Simpson O'Bryan
His uncle is John Branch
He married Annie Pillow Martin and Mary Jones Polk; by Polk, he has a son Joseph
Children also include Lucia Eugenia Branch
state legislator in Florida at the age of 21 and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas

Note the point 2-4 above meets the content of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). GZWDer (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is potential for conflation here. @GZWDer: Can you provide a proper citation for the link above rather than just a bare URL? There appears to conflicting records and a dearth of reliable sources on this, but this source states that Joseph Branch, the Florida Attorney General, was a brother of Lawrence O'Bryan Branch and was "murdered by renegades" in Arkansas in 1866 [sic]. Mary Polk Branch in her memoir writes she was married to "Col Joseph Branch", "a member of the legislature at twenty-one, and president of a bank", on Nov. 29, 1859, and that Colonel Branch was shot to death by a drunken Doctor Pendleton in November 1867. However, a genealogical entry later in the book states that a "Joseph Gerald Polk" is the son of Joseph Branch and his second wife Mary Polk Branch, and this son was "a member of Legislature of Florida at twenty-one, a successful lawyer and planter in Desha bounty, Arkansas, where he amassed a very large fortune. He was assassinated on his plantation November 22, 1867." --Animalparty! (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Shirazy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see nothing that persuades me that he passes WP:BIO, nor WP:NPROF, nor WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor WP:NATHLETE. A draft of this name already exists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of resume-material involving his works, miscellaneous papers, work experience, and poetry writing, but nothing that seems to definitively secure his notability. Closest thing might be his (failed?/successful?) candidacy for the assembly. The recent COI activity doesn't help either. GuardianH (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia's Kitchen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Balsamo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scholar finds this book about Hayao Miyazaki's earlier works, which included one film adaptation of Lupin. I don't see an obvious way to access that work and see whether substantial coverage of this character might be present. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like there is a viewable preview of that book here. The coverage of the character in it is extremely minimal - basically mentioning her when describing the plot of the original story that The Castle of Cagliostro was loosely adapted from. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Punay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The two articles provided here as sources are not enough for WP:GNG and all remaining sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Guatemala. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video logging

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bereft of encylopedic content, while the term is cleary genuine it's also pretty self explanatory (that video logging is the logging of video, thank you wikipedia). Reads somewhere between a how to guide and veichle for spam. Article isn't serving any purpose not met by Digital asset management, Content management etc. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of want to Keep just because Vlogging exists, can be called video logging as well, and this seems needed for distinguishment against that. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My first thought was to redirect to "vlog", but that's a different concept. This is categorizing videos, which seems self-explanatory and not really needing an article. This is at best a DICDEF that's too long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernew Pictures

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth. On a related note, this film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agha G. A. Gul. I agree with Saqib's assessment. This is a company so it has to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial and mostly related to Evernew Studios which is a notable topic. I still think there might be some offline coverage which we are missing in a simple before so please redirect it to Agha G. A. Gul for now. 2400:ADCC:144:8200:8483:7158:CABA:36A (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A&B Productions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asif Raza Mir - the coverage is mostly related to its founder Asif Raza Mir so redirect for now. Fails WP:NCORP due to trivial coverage. 202.47.46.115 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [4] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [5]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway~~, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?

Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. ~~Not commenting on the rest, if I may~~. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you ~~added~~ presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.

The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan notable senior army officers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no single reference in the article, there is no proof that the listed people are notable. This name of the article was at first List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers (see page history) and this name was derived from the List of British generals and brigadiers which has plenty of references. Hamwal (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference, slowly. I do not understand why editors consider deleting material that provides a basis for further research. What needs to happen with this article is (1) that references need to be imported from the linked articles, especially for the most senior officers; and (2) possibly the large list of major-generals and brigadiers which do not have articles needs to be trimmed. There will be lots of material at associated army and SL war articles which can be imported to provide the necessary references. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the first name of the article 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' was better than the current name; references must be added to this article like List of British generals and brigadiers article has so many references. Hamwal (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills WP:NLIST and the inclusion criterion is well-defined per WP:SALAT. AfD is not cleanup, this list just needs some references. Broc (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Buckshot06:, @Broc:, Please consider to change the article's name to 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' which is now active as a redirect to the article, 'List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers' - this name is more suitable than the current name. Hamwal (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. Broc (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. The word "notable" should not be in the title. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be notable!! Buckshot06 (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Horn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article only has a profile citation and nothing else could be found in Google. Shinadamina (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Rugby league. Shinadamina (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Single citation, fails notability. Mn1548 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Dragon Canyon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This would appear to really belong in the Owyhee River article rather as a stub. Qwirkle (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Owyhee River: Does not meet WP:NATFEAT as it does not have information beyond location and name. The single source included in the article is not reliable. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [12] [13] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Douglas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I actually did WP:BEFORE, but unfortunately these are the only reliable sources I found were his interview about his voice for Albert Wesker [14] [15], which is not WP:SIGCOV. Trivial mentioned sources like this [16] aren't helpful for GNG. Aside from that, the article has a lot of unreliable sources, COI and OWN issues by the actor itself. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to pass the subject-specific notability guideline of WP:NACTOR due to his numerous roles in notable works of media, and prolific acting career. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I suggest the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:NACTOR which is on the generous side. Douglas easily has enough roles in significant productions to qualify. The borderline cases for NACTOR are like "one moderately successful role, no sources at all on personal life, some minor stuff nobody cares about," which this topic is light-years ahead of. SnowFire (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even NACTOR aside, multiple sources write about things that Douglas posts, like this. As for COI and OWN issues, the former is easily rectified by any one other editor verifying whether there's NPOV issues or not; the latter, I don't see anything suggesting Douglas is edit warring, at least not recently. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if the article is messy it meets WP:NACTOR, and possibly GNG (albeit weakly) per Cukie. The conflict of interest is better off bringing up at the associated noticeboard. λ NegativeMP1 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I apologize for not being familiar with WP:NACTOR. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unless this is the sewage plant that made the Ninja Turtle, I can see no reason for there to be a stub article for a wastewater treatment plant. I've done a bit of news search and there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular or of note regarding this plant, other than it opened on the birthday of a city/government official. It may have been the largest STP in Asia at one point. Still, I can only find 2 articles that mention that, one in 2014 (and even that article is mostly hidden behind a paywall) and one saying that a scheduled STP in Delhi would surpass it in all areas. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Larson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Per ~~WP:BLP1E~~WP:BIO1E there should not be two separate articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as all of the reliable sources and verifiable content at Michael Larson has already been incorporated into Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep BLP1E does not apply. He is not alive. And the article has substantial information about him beyond his winning strategy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An additional comment: Since Jax 0677 has decided in a somewhat idiosyncratic way to express skepticism about the above (see edit history of this page), I'll note that the article has a whole section titled "Later life, death, and legacy." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Changing opinion to redirect. Fourthords's comments below are convincing. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the nominator meant WP:BIO1E, which does apply. Also, all of this article's verifiable content (including the 11% not stemming from the PYL event) is already to be found at the article about the overall event—Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Crime, Games, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Press Your Luck scandal, if only because there's little left to merge. The history may be useful for attribution purposes, though, and keeping the history around is useful for tracking how we wrote about this subject years in the past. As for Larson's article, it's now redundant to the scandal article. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I mean, it was already merged in practice, but still. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am OK with a merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever is done here, please remember to move Michael Larson (disambiguation) to the title, Michael Larson, when this is all over. BD2412 T 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Michael Larson would continue to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, unless you want to open an RFD. 162 etc. (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and redirect Press Your Luck scandal to Michael Larson. (This concern is slightly lessened if the article moves from its current POV title, but that's being argued in a RM currently, and I'd still prefer the reverse merge.) It doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles, yes, but this is the more relevant article and the better title. This is not a BIO1E case, this was actually the more notable article if only one is kept - see arguments in the earlier RM discussion. Many sources discuss the topic simply by Michael Larson's name and not by the episode or by "scandal", e.g. [17]. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Just finished reading the scandal article. All the pertinent information is there. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing seems fine, it's in older sources but talks about this person. Bit of a scandal later in life, but he's notable for the win on the show and what happened after. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other season on Pacific's football history has an article, I think some kind of merger would probably be best so that the information on this one is not lost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have a suggestion for a merge, perhaps to a combined season article? I'm all ears, but looking at 1898 and 1899, I'm not seeing much for those seasons either...Let'srun (talk) Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, there isn't much info here to save, considering the only source. Let'srun (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Tigers football, 1895–99, perhaps? Or maybe extend it to include a few of their next seasons? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see coverage to meet NSEASONS even for that range, at least from a first glance at the sources in those articles and elsewhere. 1898 has only the database and a very short recap, while the 1899 one has only the database and a long section devoted to the rules of the game in the era with no references to the actual team. Reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the first game and the first season of the team's history. The year is a matter of record and the season covered to some extent in the sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

covered to some extent in the sourcing Where? All I'm seeing is one line in a database entry here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pacific was a major program in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s but not so in the 1890s. Indeed, the program was practically non-existent prior to 1919 -- a grand total of five games played between 1895 and 1918 (zero wins, one tie, four losses, 11 total points scored). If someone some day wants to create an article on the early history of the Pacific football program, it might possibly be viable, but I certainly don't have the time or inclination to work on that when there are so many more worthwhile topics to pursue. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Jweiss11 (talk)

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clipgenerator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Atrociously sourced, highly advertorial that appears to fail WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, Software, and Germany. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I agree that the article is terribly sourced and reads like an advert, it can be improved by adding better secondary sources that verify the app meets WP:N. If this doesn't happen, I will advocate for delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mjks28:, What evidence do you have suggesting this product meets WP:NCORP? I've done the WP:BEFORE search and came up with none. The most in-depth piece I came upon was https://www.pressetext.com/news/na-20080110015.html but this is of course nothing, because it's a press release.

Graywalls (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search and can't find any sources either that prove the subject of the article is WP:N, so I change my argument to delete. Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 Wabash football team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this team, which only played a single game, meets the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article was created as a sub-stub almost 10 years ago with a single sentence -- "The 1884 Wabash Little Giants football team represented Wabash College during the 1884 college football season." The only addition since then has been a notation that the "Little Giants" nickname wasn't adopted until 20 years ago. Nothing of encyclopedic value is lost by deleting this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the article having been a WP:STUB for 9 years, and only having one citation. Mjks28 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are not reasons for deletion. For that reason, the person closing the discussion will unfortunately not take your stated opinion into regard, so please feel free to revise - and please read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think only having one citation qualifies as a reason, no? Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All material is included in the Wabash College article. Leaving a redirect would be a painless courtesy. Carrite (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article. We have thousands and thousands of stub articles. Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual and valid reasons for deletion here are set forth in the nom: The article lacks anything remotely resembling WP:SIGCOV and thus plainly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. As for redirecting, that would undermine the utility of red link in our comprehensive system of team templates. E.g., Template:Wabash Little Giants football navbox. A redlink tells us that a season article does not exist. We could theoretically fill in all of those redlinks with redirects, but then the utility of the templates is massively undercut and we end up with team templates that are a useless loop redirecting to the main team article. (A minor program like Wabash (Division III!) has very few notable seasons, and the blue links in the template allow the viewer to zero in on those seasons.) Please do not redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wabash football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 DePauw football team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, despite having the claim of playing in the first football game in Indiana. The only source is from the team website, which is primary. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better, with only a single sentence of coverage found at [[18]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis is borderline SIGCOV with a full paragraph on the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A closer can't redirect to a non-existent target. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sher Bengali

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq R3

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilangkattuvalasu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Geonames.nga.mil reports that the village (which it spells Vilangāttuvalasu) is located at 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333 14145226 N (Approved) . Google Maps shows a temple in the village with the address 4Q47+HCR, vilankattu valasu, Sivagiri, Tamil Nadu 638109, India. So if that is correct, we also know the village's PIN code. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to establish notability under WP:CORP. Only the citation to TechCrunch would appear to be vaguely reliable. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. As to the citations in the article: ArsTechnica is actually more reliable than TechCrunch (ArsTechnica is rated as generally reliable, while TechCrunch is rated as marginally reliable on WP:RSP). However, none of the three citations provide significant coverage. Source 1 is WP:ORGTRIV (it talks about a standard transaction, namely "a capital transaction, such as raised capital"). Source 2 only mentions Security Scorecard with regard to something else, and Source 3 is a listicle. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]